RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01229
INDEX CODE: 111.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 OCT 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing out on 8 August 2005 be
declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The report is not a fair assessment of his performance for this period and
coercion was a factor when this EPR was accomplished. He believes the lack
of counseling and feedback caused an inaccurate EPR. Discrimination and
unfair treatment played a major role in the working environment. His duty
title to include key duties, tasks, and responsibilities were incorrect
since he was not in the position that was commensurate with his primary
duties. Prior to out-processing from the base he should have received a
change in reporting official (CRO) EPR.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement, AF
IMT Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (LOE), Rebuttal to LOE, Hostile Work
Environment Memorandum, Hostile Work Environment and Unfair Treatment
Memorandum, a copy of Referral of Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 911,
Senior Enlisted Performance Report, Referral EPR Response, two AF IMT Form
932, Performance Feedback Worksheets and a Duty History Information
printout.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman
basic on 1 October 1990 for a term of 4 years. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of master sergeant and currently serves in that
grade. The first time the report would have been considered in the
promotion process was cycle 06E8.
His EPR profile reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
20 Jul 92 5
19 Jan 93 5
19 Jan 94 5
19 Jan 95 5
19 Jan 96 5
23 Oct 96 5
30 Jul 97 5
30 Jul 98 5
30 Jul 99 5
30 Mar 01 5
30 Mar 02 5
30 Mar 03 5
30 Mar 04 5
31 Oct 04 5
*8 Aug 05 3
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommends denial. According to DPPP the applicant failed to
provide clear evidence proving that his superiors violated the evaluator’s
rating rights. He didn’t provide any statements identifying the person who
did the coercing, the specific threats, and or any witnesses who can
corroborate the incident. The evaluator does not have to consider the
bullets that the ratee provides to write a performance report. It is the
rater’s responsibility to document performance as she/he deems appropriate;
not the member.
The governing directives state that lack of counseling or feedback, by
itself, is not sufficient enough to challenge the accuracy of an EPR.
However, in this case, the member received feedback in May 2005. The
supervisor was well in his right to accomplish a Directed by Commander EPR
due to unsatisfactory or marginal behavior. Current policy allows the
current evaluator to consider an optional LOE with referral comments to be
mentioned into the performance report. The rater was well in his right to
use the referral comments on the optional LOE and document this information
on the EPR for permanent recording.
He did not provide any type of supporting documents to support his claim of
discrimination within the unit. No statements were provided from anyone
who had first hand knowledge nor did he provide a summary of investigation
substantiating his claim of discrimination or unfair treatment.
In regards to his claim that his duty title and key duties and information
were incorrect, the Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS) reflects his
duty title as “Chief Airfield Management Operations, and his EPR shows the
same duty title. The rater is required to use this duty title since MILPDS
was updated to reflect the contested duty title.
In regards to the applicant’s claim that he should have had an EPR prior to
leaving the base, MILPDS reflects the supervisor was TDY from 16 September
2005 though 3 February 2006, for 141 days and the applicant was not TDY
with the rater. The supervisor could not have written a report on him
prior to his permanent change of station, since he did not have any
supervision to complete the report. Current regulation states that TDYs
more than 30 days will be deducted from the number of days supervision. In
this case, the supervisor didn’t have enough supervision to produce a
report due to current policy.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of DPPP. DPPPWB states the fact
that the EPR was a referral rendered the applicant ineligible for promotion
consideration in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 22.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states he provided a constructed cause in effect document for
consideration to breakdown much of what took place leading up to, and
during, the period in question. He believes he has provided enough
documentation to warrant removal of the report.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. The applicant contends the contested EPR
is unjust and should be removed from his records. After reviewing the
documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the
Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was rated
unfairly, that the report is in error, or that the evaluators were biased
and prejudiced against the applicant. In our opinion, the evaluators were
responsible for assessing the applicant’s performance during the period in
question and are presumed to have rendered their evaluations based on their
observation of the applicant’s performance. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence the contested report is error or unjust, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice; that the application was denied
without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-
01229 in Executive Session on 2 August 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 18 May 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 May 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jul 06.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995
Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...
Noting the rater’s statement of support, DPPPA stated the rater indicates he decided to change his evaluation and overall rating based on “performance feedback that was not available during the time of her rating considerations and post discussions with one of her past supervisors.” The rater has not stated what he knows now that he did not know when the original EPR was prepared. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03161
His additional rater abused his authority to encourage his deployed supervisor to reissue a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) with a negative statement in order to substantiate his comments and ratings on the contested EPR. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The additional rater of the contested EPR closing 9 November 2003, downgraded ratings rendered by the Rater in Section III, Evaluation of Performance, for “How Well Does Ratee Perform Assigned...
In reference to the applicant contending her rater did not directly supervise her for the number of days indicated on the report (140), Air Force policy, AFI 36-2403, paragraph 4.3.9.2, states that 120 days’ supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR, and only TDY or leave periods of 30 consecutive days or more are deducted from the number of days supervision. Therefore, based on the lack of evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant’s request. Her EPR was written...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00179
During the period in question, he was given a commander directed evaluation although he was not due an evaluation. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00452
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his EPRs; performance feedback evaluations; awards and decorations; letters of support; leave and earnings statements; temporary duty (TDY) documentation; excerpts of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406; Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and correspondence concerning supplemental board consideration. DPPPEP states a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02065
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02360
Her supervisor indicated on the report that feedback was provided, which is true; however, she was only provided an initial feedback. As a result when the additional rater reviewed he expedited his processing and assumed that the proper feedback had been provided based on the date of the feedback. This does not specify that the last performance feedback should be a mid-term feedback date which the applicant states she did not receive.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.